(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.10.26 2016나3188 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.10.26 2016나3188

임대료 등

Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

Reasons

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages equivalent to the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and the cost of restitution against the Defendant. The first instance court partly accepted the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and dismissed the claim for damages.

Accordingly, the Defendant only appealed against the claim for return of unjust enrichment, which is subject to the judgment of this court, is limited to the above cited claim for return of unjust enrichment.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 2011, the Plaintiff respectively leased the three-storys of the C Ground Building (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant on a fixed basis as KRW 12 months of the lease term, KRW 3.5 million per annum, and KRW 500,000 of the lease deposit.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

In 2013 when the Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the contract after the renewal, the lease deposit was increased to KRW 2 million. Accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 1.5 million to the Plaintiff on June 11, 2013.

C. On April 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention of refusal to renew the contract, and demanded the Defendant to deliver the instant building immediately after the expiration of the term of lease. However, the Defendant delayed delivery and delivery of the instant building to the Plaintiff for about ten months after the expiration of the said term of lease ( April 30, 2015).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap-B, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant continued to occupy and use the building of this case without permission after the expiration of the term of the lease of this case, and thus, the plaintiff asserts that the building of this case is a "rest rent" of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of this case.

The author argues that there is a duty to pay 4 million won.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above obligation was deducted from the first lease deposit of 2 million won and the remainder was fully repaid.

4. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.11.17 2015가단30645

-광주지방법원 2019.05.15 2018나59136

-대전지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나111029

-대구지방법원 2015.09.25 2014가단122976

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.12 2019가단45303